[Dixielandjazz] Defining jazz

[Fred Hoeptner]

In my opinion, musical styles are simply not subject to assignment of hard 
and fast boundaries; instead, they are fuzzy.   A valid definition, say of 
"trad jazz," must emphasize typical characteristics.  As a particular 
example deviates away from these characteristics, at some point it no longer 
should be called "trad jazz."  This point is not subject to objective 
determination, but is more a matter of consensus among the knowledgeable 
audience.

Although a recognition of the above may make the development of a definition 
easier, truly the list of typical characteristics deviates with time. 
Commercial interests were a usual culprit here.  For example, when ragtime 
became faddish, publishers scurried to label their products "ragtime" no 
matter the degree of syncopation that was present.

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:33:02 +1100
From: D and R Hardie <darnhard at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Defining jazz "Was Jazz ever popular
music?
To: Steve Barbone <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
Cc: dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
Message-ID: <DD43E365-A28C-11DB-B9DB-000A9590C3FA at ozemail.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Hi everybody.
                       Sadly, as Steve's contribution suggests it is
difficult to define jazz in a way everybody agrees with.That's why the
DJML gave up and adopted the term OKOM an acronym  that is highly
personal and meaningless for communication except among the ingroup and
even they often disagree.
                    Also, sadly, if we don't try to define terms we
cannot communicate meaningfully. Definitions of jazz are also time
sensitive.  As Charlie points out the ' jazz' of the 1920's popular
culture included music later critics redefined as non jazz. (My father
liked Ragtime Cowboy Joe - a tune originally a ragtime song that he
played during  the Jazz Age.) That does not mean that the distinctions
that were later made were not valid. Understanding jazz history means
trying to interpret the distinctions in a meaningful way, and, to head
off the anti historians - History is not bunk (or is it Bunk?). It can
be helpful to our understanding of what and how we listen or perform.
regards
Dan Hardie
http://tinyurl.com/nqaup